Solicitation Of A Minor Online Prosecutions
🔹 Understanding the Crime: Solicitation of a Minor Online
Definition:
Solicitation of a minor online occurs when an adult (18 or older) uses the internet, social media, chat rooms, or other electronic communications to entice, induce, request, or attempt to engage a minor (under 18) in sexual activity, explicit conversation, or meeting for sexual purposes.
Core Legal Elements:
Intent: The adult must have the intent to engage in illegal sexual activity with a minor.
Communication: There must be some form of online or electronic communication (emails, chats, texts, social media).
Knowledge: The defendant must know, or reasonably believe, that the victim is underage.
Overt Act: Even arranging to meet, or sending explicit materials, can be enough — actual physical contact is not required.
Statutory Basis (U.S.):
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) – Coercion or enticement of a minor.
18 U.S.C. § 1470 – Transfer of obscene material to minors.
18 U.S.C. § 2251–2252 – Sexual exploitation and child pornography statutes.
🔸 Major Case Laws and Prosecution Examples
1. United States v. Tykarsky (2006)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Facts:
Tykarsky, a 26-year-old, engaged in online chats with an undercover agent posing as a 14-year-old girl. He sent sexually explicit messages and arranged a meeting at a hotel. Upon arrival, he was arrested.
Issue:
He argued that since no real minor existed, he could not be convicted of solicitation.
Ruling:
The court held that an actual minor is not necessary; the belief that the person is a minor and the intent to solicit is sufficient under §2422(b).
Significance:
This case established that sting operations involving undercover officers are legally valid in proving online solicitation intent.
2. United States v. Bailey (2004)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
Facts:
Bailey communicated with someone he believed to be a 13-year-old girl in an online chatroom, sent explicit photos, and attempted to arrange a sexual encounter. He was arrested by FBI agents posing as the girl.
Defense:
Bailey argued that it was “fantasy role-playing,” not a genuine intent to meet.
Ruling:
The court rejected his defense, emphasizing intent and overt action. His travel plans and photos showed clear intent to engage in sexual activity.
Outcome:
Bailey was convicted and sentenced to 7 years in federal prison.
Key Point:
“Fantasy defense” is invalid if objective evidence shows steps toward actual solicitation or meeting.
3. United States v. Lee (2009)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
Facts:
Lee used an online chatroom to contact someone he believed was a 15-year-old boy. He sent nude photos and discussed sexual acts. When arrested, he claimed he was “just chatting.”
Court Finding:
Even without a meeting or travel, the communication itself constituted solicitation because it sought to engage the minor in sexual acts.
Outcome:
Conviction under §2422(b) upheld; Lee was sentenced to 10 years.
Importance:
This case confirmed that physical meeting is not required — online communication with sexual intent is enough.
4. United States v. Gladish (2008)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
Facts:
Gladish chatted online with a supposed 14-year-old girl, describing sexual acts in detail. He never arranged a meeting but made several suggestive proposals.
Legal Question:
Was explicit online talk without a plan to meet considered “enticement”?
Decision:
The court reversed his conviction, ruling that mere sexual talk without an intent to meet or act does not constitute solicitation.
Reasoning:
Solicitation requires an intent to cause the minor to engage in sexual activity, not merely fantasy discussions.
Precedent Value:
It drew a fine line: Speech alone is not criminal unless it demonstrates intent to cause illegal sexual conduct.
5. United States v. Farner (1998)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
Facts:
Farner used the internet to chat with what he believed was a 15-year-old girl. He described explicit sexual activities and arranged to meet her in person. At the meeting place, he was arrested by undercover officers.
Defense:
He claimed entrapment, saying he was induced by the government.
Court’s Decision:
The court rejected the entrapment defense, stating that Farner’s predisposition and willingness were evident from his online chats and initiative to meet.
Result:
Convicted of online enticement of a minor.
Importance:
Reinforced that undercover operations are legitimate, and intent shown through actions negates claims of entrapment.
6. State v. Townsend (2002)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Facts:
Townsend used AOL chat rooms to communicate with a 13-year-old and sent explicit pictures. The “minor” was actually an undercover officer.
Issue:
He argued that Florida’s statute did not apply to online communication.
Decision:
The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that internet solicitation is a form of electronic enticement covered under the law.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; he received 15 years imprisonment.
Significance:
This case extended state-level solicitation statutes to cover internet-based communication.
🔹 Legal Principles Derived from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| No actual minor required | Belief that the victim is a minor is enough for conviction (Tykarsky, Bailey). |
| Intent matters most | Even without meeting, intent to cause illegal sexual activity can suffice (Lee). |
| Mere talk is not enough | Fantasy or chat-only cases may not qualify without proof of intent (Gladish). |
| Undercover stings are valid | Courts accept decoy operations as lawful (Farner, Townsend). |
| Entrapment is hard to prove | If the defendant initiates or shows willingness, entrapment defense fails. |
🔸 Summary
Online solicitation of minors is one of the most strictly prosecuted internet crimes in the U.S. Courts consistently focus on intent, explicit conduct, and belief in the minor’s age. Even without an actual victim, attempt and communication can lead to serious federal sentences (10–30 years).
RELATED Blog
0 comments